GT3RS webspecial- vast differences
06-01-2006 | 03:50 PM
#16
Race Car
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,972
Likes: 0
I think that if (when) it does come w/o all that stuff, we should get PCCBs in exchange. In that case, I'd give the RS a hard look.
If it does come at a 20k premium and decontented as expected, then you are basically paying 20k for the RS badge. Yes, it has some other cool parts. Yes it does have a widebody. But likely its not going to be appreciably better performing than the 'plain' GT3, so the 20k will be primarily for the RS badge.
If it does come at a 20k premium and decontented as expected, then you are basically paying 20k for the RS badge. Yes, it has some other cool parts. Yes it does have a widebody. But likely its not going to be appreciably better performing than the 'plain' GT3, so the 20k will be primarily for the RS badge.
06-01-2006 | 04:13 PM
#18
The Rebel
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,390
Likes: 40
From: South Florida
Well sort of here's what you'd get with the RS and how much it would cost you to buy afterwards:
RS CF Hood/Bonnet= $5,000
RS Original Rear wing=$2,800
RS Suspension Upgd=$8,000
all these figures based on 996 GT3 RS parts pricing...
Just in parts I come up with $15,800 (at retail price not manufacturer cost) that should be the maximum difference in price between the GT3 and the RS...IMHO the RS is worth it however I agree that to make up some of the difference from what our ROW bretheren are receiving and what we're getting that Porsche should either reduce the price and or throw in HID's and PCCB.
RS CF Hood/Bonnet= $5,000
RS Original Rear wing=$2,800
RS Suspension Upgd=$8,000
all these figures based on 996 GT3 RS parts pricing...
Just in parts I come up with $15,800 (at retail price not manufacturer cost) that should be the maximum difference in price between the GT3 and the RS...IMHO the RS is worth it however I agree that to make up some of the difference from what our ROW bretheren are receiving and what we're getting that Porsche should either reduce the price and or throw in HID's and PCCB.
06-01-2006 | 04:20 PM
#19
Instructor
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Wilton, CT USA
why is everyone convinced that we are not getting a lexan rear window? The only thing i saw in the other post with the letter from DOT was that we can't get the little side windows inbetween the B and C piller made in lexan. The ruling did not discuss rear windows. Those windows are realiatively small anyway.
06-01-2006 | 06:12 PM
#20
Banned
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,935
Likes: 1
From: on your mind
Originally Posted by MJones
Big differences between US and EU (GB) RS webspecials.
US has alot of omissions....read were not sure if DOT/NHTSA will approve.
No talk of glass, shell seats.... or statements like:"the unadulterated driving experience enjoyed with a racing car, but also meets all requirements for road-legal sports cars."
US Webspecial
EU (GB) Webspecial
What will we get? Something sorta like it's euro brother
US has alot of omissions....read were not sure if DOT/NHTSA will approve.
No talk of glass, shell seats.... or statements like:"the unadulterated driving experience enjoyed with a racing car, but also meets all requirements for road-legal sports cars."
US Webspecial
EU (GB) Webspecial
What will we get? Something sorta like it's euro brother
06-01-2006 | 06:34 PM
#21
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,727
Likes: 6
From: Los Gatos / Tahoe, CA
I don’t get a lot of the rationale as to why certain things won’t be available here. Lexan rear window, doesn’t the Ferrari CS have that? LWFW, why on earth wouldn’t it have that? Not being able to get those seats really sucks too. I guess it is now mandatory to be sounded by air bags.
It also seems to me that if a GT3 RS is coming here the GT3 should be available without a sunroof as it would be a joke to have a sunroof in the RS.
Porsche should sell a “track” package with all the missing parts. Now there’s a marketing idea...
It also seems to me that if a GT3 RS is coming here the GT3 should be available without a sunroof as it would be a joke to have a sunroof in the RS.
Porsche should sell a “track” package with all the missing parts. Now there’s a marketing idea...
06-01-2006 | 06:49 PM
#22
Thread Starter
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,569
Likes: 9
From: Los Angeles, CA
Rear Glazing Plastic (A4) NOT
Originally Posted by healeyg
why is everyone convinced that we are not getting a lexan rear window? The only thing i saw in the other post with the letter from DOT was that we can't get the little side windows inbetween the B and C piller made in lexan. The ruling did not discuss rear windows. Those windows are realiatively small anyway.
\1\ While not discussed in the 1996 final rule, the reduction in
visibility through rear windows using plastic glazing due to
abrasion and weathering creates significant safety concerns because
a driver may have insufficient visibility to avoid a crash in the
first place. This issue was not discussed in the 1996 final rule
because all parties to that rulemaking agreed that inferior
visibility in the rear window created an unsafe driving condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2003 final rule, NHTSA incorporated by reference the
ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 provision for Item 4A glazing that closely mirrors
the requirements contained in the current FMVSS No. 205. It has come to
our attention, however, that the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 provision for Item
4A glazing does not contain the restriction that this Item of glazing
only be permitted for use in side windows rearward of the ``C'' pillar.
It would also permit Item 4A glazing in the rear windows of vehicles
that previously were not allowed to have Item 4A glazing in any windows
other than some rear side windows. The omission of this restriction was
inadvertent and, as such, was not discussed or considered in either the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on August 4, 1999 proposing to
amend FMVSS No. 205 by incorporating by reference ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996
or in the July 2003 final rule. As such, the agency is taking this
opportunity to correct the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 205 to make
clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows
rearward of the ``C'' pillar.
Full Text Here
06-01-2006 | 08:12 PM
#25
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,693
Likes: 100
From: California Boardwalk, Skanderborg Denmark
While I would love to have the full European version, I hope that in addition to the wide body, modified rear suspension, carbon wing and carbon front hood we at least get the light flywheel and carbon bucket seats which have not been confirmed for the USA as yet.
06-01-2006 | 09:26 PM
#27
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 1
From: London, UK
Originally Posted by MJones
\1\ While not discussed in the 1996 final rule, the reduction in
visibility through rear windows using plastic glazing due to
abrasion and weathering creates significant safety concerns because
a driver may have insufficient visibility to avoid a crash in the
first place. This issue was not discussed in the 1996 final rule
because all parties to that rulemaking agreed that inferior
visibility in the rear window created an unsafe driving condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2003 final rule, NHTSA incorporated by reference the
ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 provision for Item 4A glazing that closely mirrors
the requirements contained in the current FMVSS No. 205. It has come to
our attention, however, that the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 provision for Item
4A glazing does not contain the restriction that this Item of glazing
only be permitted for use in side windows rearward of the ``C'' pillar.
It would also permit Item 4A glazing in the rear windows of vehicles
that previously were not allowed to have Item 4A glazing in any windows
other than some rear side windows. The omission of this restriction was
inadvertent and, as such, was not discussed or considered in either the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on August 4, 1999 proposing to
amend FMVSS No. 205 by incorporating by reference ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996
or in the July 2003 final rule. As such, the agency is taking this
opportunity to correct the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 205 to make
clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows
rearward of the ``C'' pillar.
Full Text Here
visibility through rear windows using plastic glazing due to
abrasion and weathering creates significant safety concerns because
a driver may have insufficient visibility to avoid a crash in the
first place. This issue was not discussed in the 1996 final rule
because all parties to that rulemaking agreed that inferior
visibility in the rear window created an unsafe driving condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2003 final rule, NHTSA incorporated by reference the
ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 provision for Item 4A glazing that closely mirrors
the requirements contained in the current FMVSS No. 205. It has come to
our attention, however, that the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 provision for Item
4A glazing does not contain the restriction that this Item of glazing
only be permitted for use in side windows rearward of the ``C'' pillar.
It would also permit Item 4A glazing in the rear windows of vehicles
that previously were not allowed to have Item 4A glazing in any windows
other than some rear side windows. The omission of this restriction was
inadvertent and, as such, was not discussed or considered in either the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on August 4, 1999 proposing to
amend FMVSS No. 205 by incorporating by reference ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996
or in the July 2003 final rule. As such, the agency is taking this
opportunity to correct the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 205 to make
clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows
rearward of the ``C'' pillar.
Full Text Here
Yeah for all those guys reveresing really quick having not maintained their car properly and ruined the rear window... What do they think about SUV rear visibility when you have someone in a miata or Elise following behind?
06-01-2006 | 11:56 PM
#28
Pro
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
From: Oregon
Just confirmed #1 on the list in Beverly Hills. All this talk is getting me more excited. The fact that my 73 RS will have a worthy companion in the hangar gives me a smile a mile wide. Think of all the great things Porsche put on the 73 RS for homoligation. Who know's what they might surprize us with. I have a funny feeling Porsche would not release the RS in the states, make this much fuss about it, if they were not planning to build a very special, "limited" production car that will always be the penacle of the breed.
Joe
Joe
